In August 2015, the City Constabulary of the Georgetown Mayor & City Council terminated the services of three trainee city constables on the basis of them becoming pregnant before the expiration of a specified two year window during which they were prohibited from becoming pregnant.
The fallout was blistering and the backlash swift. Amid the several public demonstrations by citizens against City Hall, the Minister of Social Protection, Ms Volda Lawrence made this telling comment in response to the public outrage over the discriminatory treatment of the city workers: “Pregnancy is not a condition; it’s an act of life. It’s the very act that keeps us as a human race from being extinct. Hence, as employers, we can ill afford to disallow it or worse yet seek to prevent it through [discriminatory] policy making.”
Although the administration of the City Constabulary sought to vigorously defend their decision and the principles under which it was made, the public outcry and ministerial intervention gave them pause to reflect on the archaic policies and the three workers of the city constabulary were subsequently reinstated.
With the high visibility given to this story in the television and print media, and even on social networks, it was certainly not expected that, scarcely one year later, it would be a television news outlet that would come to the attention of the public for discriminating against a female employee on the basis of her being pregnant.
When the unfair treatment of pregnant news anchor Natasha Smith went public earlier this month, the leadership at the National Commu-nications Network (NCN) was scrambling to appear non-discriminatory, but unconvincingly so.
The decision to pull Ms Smith from the chair of NCN’s evening newscast because of her pregnancy, and the crude instructions given to the cameramen, were completely mind boggling and seemed to represent a skewed, possibly chauvinistic, outlook on the role of women in the workplace.
The existence of this apparently outmoded thinking, the manner in which the decisions were implemented, and that they allegedly emanated from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the state’s own media apparatus makes this a particularly blatant violation of the rights of female workers, whether pregnant or not, as it seeks to convey what they can expect should their condition and circumstances match those of Ms Smith in the future.
Under our anti-discrimination laws, the decision to remove Ms Smith was in violation of her right to work, and NCN, as a fair opportunity employer, should have clear rules and regulations as it relates to the women in its employ.
Perhaps the time has come for the government through Minister Lawrence to clearly articulate the laws and acceptable practice relating to pregnant workers, particularly drawing reference to workers’ recourse, whether legal or otherwise, when their rights are ignored or trampled upon by powerful managers and business owners.
The public is becoming tired of President David Granger stepping out of the shadows from time to time to offer placatory words on this matter without measures being taken by the relevant agency to prevent a recurrence of the situation, or see that those who are guilty are obliged to take the consequences, or those who are affected are recompensed.
The Ministry of Social Protection should write to the specific entities known to commit this particular offence, and warn employers of the consequences of such actions, and maybe organize a few information sharing sessions with interested and defaulting organisations to bring them up to speed on current legislation regarding this and similar matters. The issue is too serious to be ignored or swept under the carpet.
Clearly the management at NCN felt empowered to act outside of the law in treating a pregnant woman unfairly. They should be held to a higher standard than the City Constabulary because of the nature and high visibility of their operation in the eyes of the public.
While NCN’s Chief Executive Officer Lennox Cornette has denied that he gave a directive to replace Ms Smith because of her condition, the Guyana Press Association (GPA) has issued a statement quoting from the minutes of the NCN meeting in question which does not necessarily sustain that claim. According to the GPA, the record reflects that the CEO recommended that Ms Smith be replaced as news anchor; this in fact is what was communicated to her by management.
Across the Caribbean and in other jurisdictions, it is unlawful for women to be treated less favourably because of their pregnancy; and as stated, our own laws offer similar protection to pregnant women and state that discrimination in the workplace is unlawful.
The President has spoken on this matter and the Prime Minister and Minister of Information (with direct responsibility for NCN) Mr Moses Nagamootoo has also sought to distance himself from this distasteful saga. The CEO Mr Lennox Cornette, however, has failed to take full responsibility for a gaffe that was either at worst caused by him, or at best happened under his watch. Sadly, apart from stringent denials, he has not done all that a chief manager should do: publicly accept responsibility, apologise and move on.
Employers like NCN and the City Constabulary have an obligation to treat pregnant women in the workplace fairly and in the same way as they do all other employees, except in instances where certain accommodations have to be made based on particular work functions.
NCN, in this instance, missed an opportunity to take the lead for improved working conditions for pregnant women and, instead of supporting a longstanding anchor and employee of eight years during the period of her pregnancy, the organization’s leadership opted instead to alienate her by removing her from the anchor’s chair in a most bizarre manner.
Since then, of course, Ms Smith has returned to the anchor’s chair, but we have not yet heard words from the company to the effect that management takes its responsibility as an equal opportunity worker seriously, and that it deeply regretted the decision to show her unequal treatment.
There is also no word as to government’s approach to ensure that such discrimination is erased from the practices of state agencies and private institutions across the country, especially as it is reasonable to assume that pregnant women working at various levels of the public and private sector are exposed to similar discriminatory practices by self-serving managers and employers who may otherwise be ignorant of the rules and regulations governing the fair treatment of pregnant employees on the job.
